Ageing casanova Silvio Berlusconi may control most of Italy's media, but was unable to hush updetails of his scandalous love life.
Silvio Berlusconi has long impersonated the Latin lover-version ageing-businessman-who can’t- keep-his-hands-off-women – apparently without any electoral harm. But some Italians thought their Prime Minister was overdoing it after three media events this European summer.
First, it was revealed he’d attended the 18th birthday party of a Neapolitan teenager, Noemi Letizia, who was used to calling him “Papi”, meaning Daddy. Many presumed she had elided the preceding “Sugar”.
In the major Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Berlusconi’s wife Veronica said her husband chases after minors and needs help from his friends. Cynics thought she was positioning herself for an eventual divorce settlement which would show Silvio that, in the long run, sex for money is cheaper than sex for free.
Next, investigations into the activities of an Italian businessman suspected of corruption revealed he had sent paid escorts to Berlusconi parties. One of the escorts had recorded raunchy conversations with the Prime Minister. And, at the same time, photos of scantily clad girls at parties in one of Berlusconi’s Sardinian villas were published.
All this got huge coverage outside Italy and some foreign media claimed that, because of Berlusconi’s hold on the media, this was the way Italians heard about the scandal.
This made Italy sound like Kazakhstan. But there are still multiple sources of information for those who want to keep informed. Even some right-wing Italians worry about the long-term effect on democracy of Berlusconi’s television stranglehold, but it has to be set in context.
Before entering politics, Berlusconi broke the state television monopoly to establish three major commercial channels. Once in power, he was able to combine his influence on the state channels, RAI 1, 2 and 3, and the channels he founded. Nonetheless, under these conditions he has lost two elections. When Berlusconi has won elections, it’s been due to the shortcomings of the centre-left opposition and his skill in campaigning even beyond television, as well as to his influence in television.
There are strict rules to ensure a fair go for all political parties in television coverage during the run-up to elections. Outside the pre-election periods when these par condition rules apply, most talk shows tend to be anything but pro-Berlusconi. Satirical television programs, of course, remain predominantly anti-government.
Although Berlusconi claims to be a liberal, he has a company director’s idea of his role as Prime Minister. He believes what is good for Berlusconi is good for Italy. He is intolerant of criticism or even probing questions and this affects certain media people prone to self-censorship. He now demands more servility than in his first years in power. At that time, he appointed an excellent journalist of socialist background, Enrico Mentana, as editorial director of his flagship channel, Canale 5. But Mentana resigned in a huff earlier this year, saying Berlusconi had increasingly surrounded himself with yes-men instead of independent journalists.
A confirmation of Berlusconi’s anti-freediscussion stance came in an August statement, when he said it is intolerable that the state television channels, which are paid for by all, attack those elected by a majority. He also said they should not attack the opposition, but simply inform.
When the centre-left was in power it did not grasp the nettle of Berlusconi’s conflict of interest, perhaps because it feared seeming vindictive. Yet Italy’s state-run television was political before the advent of commercial television. RAI 1 was sympathetic to the then major party, the Christian Democrats; RAI 2 to the Socialists; and RAI 3 to the Communists. RAI 3 is still sympathetic to the Communists or, as they have become, the ex- Communists. For decades the need for a RAI independent of political parties has been recognised but, even now, the centre-left struggles desperately to keep its influence on RAI 3.
Many Italians were pleased Berlusconi established three rival channels which at least were free-to-air. Their attitude was that television had always been politically slanted, but at least they did not have to pay for the Berlusconi channels. There is an annual licence free for RAI. For some years now it has also run advertisements, so the difference between it and the commercial channels has been blurred, particularly as RAI programs its schedule to compete with Berlusconi’s Mediaset channels.
Sky Italia, with 4 million subscribers, now provides an alternative source of information. The initial Berlusconi-Murdoch idyll has been replaced by competition, so some Italians’ hopes for fuller television information reside with Murdoch. One of the dangers of Berlusconi’s television power is that RAI policies will be changed to serve Mediaset: some pointers suggest RAI is abandoning its public-service role to align with Mediaset against Sky. Key appointments to RAI are now made in Berlusconi’s residence in Rome.
Radio is lively and more varied than television. Most stations, such as that of the libertarian Radical Party, are not at all influenced by Berlusconi. Increasingly the internet is also a source of alternative information.
On the whole, the press is anything but pro- Berlusconi. It’s a distinctive feature of the Italian press that the best papers have the largest circulation. The two national dailies, the Milanese Corriere della Sera (770,000 daily circulation) and the Roman La Repubblica (670,000), are critical of Berlusconi. La Repubblica and its stablemate, the weekly magazine L’Espresso (455,000), campaign against him. Corriere della Sera publishes some articles which tear into the government, but will also publish favourable reports. It is only normal that the press be critical of governments in a democracy, but to Berlusconi it is proof the Communists wield undue influence.
Although the Berlusconi family-owned daily Il Giornale (300,000) and the weekly magazine Panorama (450,000), from his publishing company Mondadori, are solidly in his favour, this is a minority position. Berlusconi owns many women’s magazines and popular entertainment magazines but he is weak in opinion journals – even the small but influential daily Il Foglio, in which Veronica Berlusconi has a substantial holding, does not follow his party line.
The Italian press as a whole reported the disclosures about Berlusconi’s scandalous behaviour, yet for the first three days RAI 1 did not mention them. Television news, rather than commentary, is the nub of the problem caused by Berlusconi’s stranglehold. RAI 1 director Augusto Minzolini, formerly parliamentary correspondent for the Turin daily La Stampa, was asked to give explanations by the newly appointed RAI president, Paolo Garimberti. From that moment RAI 1 began to give cautious reports on the investigation which had lifted the lid on escorts attending parties at Berlusconi’s Rome residence.
On television Minzolini justified his choice of a black-out: “This story is full of allusions, more or less credible witnesses and personal rancour; nothing is yet sure nor is there any suggestion of a crime regarding the Prime Minister or his entourage.”
In other words, he claimed it was simply gossip. Yet to Garimberti, a well-known journalist, it was news which a public-service broadcaster was obliged to give. The opposition called for the sacking of Minzolini but he continues in his job, as does Garimberti.
Berlusconi’s partying will probably have some negative electoral consequences. But it is not the first time politicians have shown similar taste – whether they be Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, Francois Mitterand or Lord Palmerston. Italians know Berlusconi is virtually separated from his wife. In effect, he is a single man with a Peter Pan-complex who seems to want to party in one of his scantily-dressed television shows.
Some Italians envy him; others disapprove, thinking the adorable rogue has now gone too far. Yet even before these disclosures, many Italians who found Berlusconi crass, arrogant and presumptuous voted for his government because it seemed to know what to do, rather than for the centre-left. For all its fine proposals, the centre-left was rent by factional fights when governing and repeatedly blackmailed by its smallest components which held the balance of power.
The differences between centre-left and Berlusconi’s centre-right are clear: e.g., after 15 years of discussion, the former Communist Party and the former left-wing Christian Democrats formed the Democratic Party, the major centre-left group. In response, Berlusconi decided overnight to meld the party he founded with the National Alliance to form the Liberty Party. Such a rapid-fire approach may win Berlusconi elections, but he finds it more difficult to produce convincing government policies.
Some Italians were surprised not only at the foreign media’s coverage of Berlusconi’s sexual behaviour, but also at the interpretations given. The foreign media is kidding itself if it thinks it was the only source of information on the matter: there was not a total information black-out, although Berlusconi may be working on it.
Italians will not judge the government on the Prime Minister’s personal misbehaviour, but on issues such as the economy, the fight against tax evasion, pensions, the treatment of southern Italy, immigration, the administration of justice and education. To recognise this it is necessary to go beyond the consultation of press clippings, the conversations of taxi drivers and occasional flying visits.
Desmond O’Grady is an Australian journalist and author resident in Rome. His most recent book, the novel Dinny Going Down (Arcadia, 2007), concerns a Sydney journalist
